Glascock v. Watters

SPENCE, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages for personal injuries. Upon a trial by jury plaintiff had judgment against defendants for the sum of $1500. A motion for new trial was made in the trial court and from the order granting said motion, plaintiff appeals.

The only point argued by appellant is that the trial court erred in granting a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence. The motion was made upon several grounds and the order was not based solely upon the ground mentioned, but also “upon all issues”. Respondents argue that the order was properly made upon the ground of error in the instructions as well as the ground of insuffi

[715]

cieney of the evidence. It is therefore apparent that appellant’s brief is inadequate to show error in the trial court’s ruling.

(Weaver

v.

Shell Oil Co. of California,

129 Cal. App. 232 [18 Pac. (2d) 736].)

We have nevertheless considered the ground of insufficiency of the evidence and are satisfied that the trial court’s ruling was proper upon that ground alone. The rules which govern the trial courts in passing upon motions for new trials on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence and the rules which govern the appellate courts on appeals from orders granting such motions are well settled.

(Buck

v.

Borchers,

203 Cal. 210 [263 Pac. 226];

Rosenberg

v.

George A. Moore & Co.,

194 Cal. 392 [229 Pac. 34];

Gordon

v.

Roberts,

162 Cal. 506 [123 Pac. 288];